Another body found in un-searched structure

After the discovery, the chief made one good statement and one bad one.

The good one: "The home was fully engulfed when we got here."

Translation: A search was impossible (assuming he knows the correct definition of "fully engulfed", and here lately the incorrect use of the term by 911 callers around here casts doubt on that assumption.

You are right. Good response until that point when he said they were only volunteers. And from the pictures, the house may have been blowing and going, I don't think my term would have been totally engulfed - too much still standing. BUT, I was not there...

The chief didn't strike me as particularly articulate. Without knowing a little more about the situation, I don't know how much blame belongs on the fire department. Law enforcement may have also missed it if they were the ones that investigated the cause of the fire. And it may have been the victim was not left in a very recognizable state.

Law Enforcement is not responsible for primary and secondary searches of structure fires, the fire department is. Frankly, the fire department screwed up by not finding a deceased victim inside the structure. Whatever the circumstances are for them not finding the victim, they did not find them.

On a side note I absolutely love when volunteer fire fighters say "I am only a volunteer" as an excuse for why they can't, or won't, or didn't, do something. But if anyone questions their ability, or says the ultimate blashemy in their minds that they aren't as good as a paid department they go all Tazmanian Devil on your a z z. So which is it? You are just a volunteer, meaning you aren't expected to do much, or you are a non-paid professional firefighter working to be better all the time? Because you can't be both and to quote Woody Harrelson's character from Zombieland "It's time to nut up or shut up!"

Law Enforcement is not responsible for primary and secondary searches of structure fires, the fire department is. Frankly, the fire department screwed up by not finding a deceased victim inside the structure. Whatever the circumstances are for them not finding the victim, they did not find them.

If the structure is fully involved when the fire department is on scene, there is no primary search. Once the structure burns to the ground, there is no reason for the fire department to do anything further. If the fire department did not make entry into the structure before the fire, there should not be entry made after the fire. Any occupants inside the structure would have succumb to smoke and fire long ago. The property destroyed and anyone inside dead, there is nothing left for the fire department to save.

The next step should be an investigation. Investigators should comb through everything to check for arson. If there are any victims, the investigation should uncover them. A JP can be called, and an inquest ordered and the body sent for autopsy. Everything needs to be handled carefully, the scene needs to be carefully photographed, and as much should be done to protect the integrity of the scene as possible.

If this was "just a volunteer fire department", then I'm doubting they had anyone on the department that was a fire investigator, much less even a certified peace officer. They can go back to their truck, shed their bunker gear, and have some cold water. They can go back to the station. But there really isn't any reason for them to be inside a potential crime scene contaminating the scene.

Do we know if arson started this fire? Do we know what killed the victim? I guess everyone is assuming the fire did, but how do we know? Without a proper investigation, those questions are never answered.

I'm not saying this was the fire department's reasoning in this particular case. But I am saying I see what happened as a failure of law enforcement as much as a failure of the fire department. Everyone made assumptions, and it made asses out of everyone.

If the structure is fully involved when the fire department is on scene, there is no primary search. Once the structure burns to the ground, there is no reason for the fire department to do anything further. If the fire department did not make entry into the structure before the fire, there should not be entry made after the fire. Any occupants inside the structure would have succumb to smoke and fire long ago. The property destroyed and anyone inside dead, there is nothing left for the fire department to save.

So let me see if I have this right. After the fire is out you would be okay with the FD saying well it burned down so there is no sense in looking for your gramma that might be inside the house because she is dead. Sorry NO! The fire department has the DUTY to do a search for victims, even deceased ones.

Obviously, if the building is truly "fully involved" then no primary search can be done for victims. I have seen fire coming out of one window of a house being called fully involved, so pardon me if I look at that description a little skeptically. But that doesn't relieve us of the responsibility to look for victims after the fact.

The next step should be an investigation. Investigators should comb through everything to check for arson. If there are any victims, the investigation should uncover them. A JP can be called, and an inquest ordered and the body sent for autopsy. Everything needs to be handled carefully, the scene needs to be carefully photographed, and as much should be done to protect the integrity of the scene as possible.

I would expect firefighters to be in the mix looking for hidden fire, overhauling AND looking foe victims. Finding the victim 2 WEEKS LATER is inexcusable.

If this was "just a volunteer fire department", then I'm doubting they had anyone on the department that was a fire investigator, much less even a certified peace officer. They can go back to their truck, shed their bunker gear, and have some cold water. They can go back to the station. But there really isn't any reason for them to be inside a potential crime scene contaminating the scene.

Have you ever heard of Michigan vs Tyler? If the fire department leaves the scene and doesn't leave any firefighters there to maintain control, or haven't turned it over to a fire investigator, they can't even return to the scene to investigate without the owner's permission or a warrant. I suggest you do some research and understand this ruling before you end up getting your butt handed to you in court.

Do we know if arson started this fire? Do we know what killed the victim? I guess everyone is assuming the fire did, but how do we know? Without a proper investigation, those questions are never answered.

NO ONE FOUND THE VICTIM FOR 2 WEEKS! Nothing you say can explain or justify that.

If the FD or investgators didn't maintain control of the scene, meaning they always had someone on the scene until the investigation was complete, good luck proving anything in court. A good lawyer for the defense would shred you for not maintaining the chain of evidence.

I'm not saying this was the fire department's reasoning in this particular case. But I am saying I see what happened as a failure of law enforcement as much as a failure of the fire department. Everyone made assumptions, and it made asses out of everyone.

Nope, sorry it isn't the duty of police officers to search for victims of fire. It is the fire department's job. The only people that were made to look bad here were the fire department and the chief's "We're just a volunteer fire department." added to that.

Does it happen? Yes. Will it happen again? Yes. The we're just a volunteer fire department excuse is pathetic.

So let me see if I have this right. After the fire is out you would be okay with the FD saying well it burned down so there is no sense in looking for your gramma that might be inside the house because she is dead. Sorry NO! The fire department has the DUTY to do a search for victims, even deceased ones.

Obviously, if the building is truly "fully involved" then no primary search can be done for victims. I have seen fire coming out of one window of a house being called fully involved, so pardon me if I look at that description a little skeptically. But that doesn't relieve us of the responsibility to look for victims after the fact.

The fire department did not know there was a victim in the house. Apparently no one did. And if you'll reread my comments, I did not say there should be no search. I said there was no reason for the fire department to perform the search for the obviously deceased victim when there should be an open investigation.

I would expect firefighters to be in the mix looking for hidden fire, overhauling AND looking foe victims. Finding the victim 2 WEEKS LATER is inexcusable.

There's nothing left but bricks and charred timber. Almost everything in there that was going to burn has already burned. Having a half dozen firefighters in there spraying water and digging around doesn't do anything but contaminate the scene.

Have you ever heard of Michigan vs Tyler? If the fire department leaves the scene and doesn't leave any firefighters there to maintain control, or haven't turned it over to a fire investigator, they can't even return to the scene to investigate without the owner's permission or a warrant. I suggest you do some research and understand this ruling before you end up getting your butt handed to you in court.

I'm very familiar with Michigan v. Tyler. And I'm very familiar with the requirements of exigent circumstances and the requirements to get warrants. I'm not saying the fire department leave and then law enforcement arrive. I'm saying law enforcement should have been ready to assume control of the scene immediately. There's very seldom a fire or any kind of activity like that where there isn't a city cop or a deputy for miles that doesn't respond, if for nothing else to be nosy. The fire department doesn't have to leave immediately. But they don't have to go poking around in the remains, either.

NO ONE FOUND THE VICTIM FOR 2 WEEKS! Nothing you say can explain or justify that.

I am not trying to justify the fact that no one found the victim. I'm saying there should have been an immediate investigation, and the investigation should have found the victim.

If the FD or investgators didn't maintain control of the scene, meaning they always had someone on the scene until the investigation was complete, good luck proving anything in court. A good lawyer for the defense would shred you for not maintaining the chain of evidence.

Again, I never said the fire department should not maintain control of the scene until law enforcement arrives. I'm just saying there is no reason for them to be physically inside what is left.

A good criminal case can hinge on something as small as a single hair. Any DNA evidence comes back inconclusive, one of the first tactics the defense uses is the fire department contaminated the scene, and they argue the jury should not consider any evidence because there were multiple firefighters on the scene contaminating or possibly planting evidence. They point out the firefighters are good people and good at their jobs, but they aren't investigators, and now we can't prove who the real killer is.

Proving a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt requires accounting for every boot print, shoe print, fingerprint, and hair on the crime scene, and being able to trace it back to a specific person that was on scene during the fire, then proving that person was not there before the fire. Defense attorneys want to be able to point the finger at someone else. Anything that is unaccounted, inconclusive, or comes back to someone else is how they exonerate their client. With one to three investigators, and pictures taken before each step is made, each step accounted for, and precautions taken not to contaminate any DNA evidence, it's not a terribly difficult task. Start throwing in a bunch of firefighters, and it gets very tricky. Especially volunteer firefighters that weren't specifically accounted for at a station beforehand or may not clock in/out at their workplace.

Add in the fact that most of them do not write individual reports like peace officers, the case may take several years to go to trial, and memories fade, and it makes it a very difficult task. Compounded by the fact the chief and several of the volunteers are likely not terribly well-spoken and get nervous on the witness stand, so they would make very difficult witnesses. If there needs to be a chain of custody for evidence, it needs to start and end with law enforcement.

Again, I'm not justifying that a search didn't happen. But every fire has a cause, and when an occupant does not escape and survive, there is a reason. Until an investigation happens, none of that can be determined. Waiting two weeks to investigate is taking WAY too long. If it were a homicide, the odds of solving it are now very low. Cold investigations make cold cases.

The fire department did not know there was a victim in the house. Apparently no one did. And if you'll reread my comments, I did not say there should be no search. I said there was no reason for the fire department to perform the search for the obviously deceased victim when there should be an open investigation.

From the story posted here on firehouse:

Neighbors told police said a friend had been drinking and hanging around the home the night it caught fire.

That alone would be enough reason for me to look for a victim in the remains.

There's nothing left but bricks and charred timber. Almost everything in there that was going to burn has already burned. Having a half dozen firefighters in there spraying water and digging around doesn't do anything but contaminate the scene.

Actually that wasn't all that was left...a victim was left in the remains of this building. You seem to think that no firefighters can do a search or overhaul without being like a bull in a China shop.

I watched the video, there is far more left bricks and charred timber. There are still walls standing.

I'm very familiar with Michigan v. Tyler. And I'm very familiar with the requirements of exigent circumstances and the requirements to get warrants. I'm not saying the fire department leave and then law enforcement arrive. I'm saying law enforcement should have been ready to assume control of the scene immediately. There's very seldom a fire or any kind of activity like that where there isn't a city cop or a deputy for miles that doesn't respond, if for nothing else to be nosy. The fire department doesn't have to leave immediately. But they don't have to go poking around in the remains, either.

Having a cop arrive on scene to be "nosey" and expecting them to take control of the scene and investigate may be how it is done in your area, but not here. The fire department determines if an investigation needs to be done and then they call for an investigator and FD personnel stay on scene to secure the scene and assist the investigators.

You were the one that said in your original post the FD could leave...

I am not trying to justify the fact that no one found the victim. I'm saying there should have been an immediate investigation, and the investigation should have found the victim.

And I am saying you are WRONG. The fire department while conducting overhaul and an initial search for the origin of the fire should have found the victim. Not someone 2 WEEKS LATER!

Again, I never said the fire department should not maintain control of the scene until law enforcement arrives. I'm just saying there is no reason for them to be physically inside what is left.

Actually you did say that, you said they could take off their gear, get a drink of water, and leave. So you would be okay with them not finding your wife, mom, gramma, dad, cousin, son, daughter, or whoever for 2 weeks. Because the cops YOU say should have investigated apparently didn't, and neither did the firefighters if they didn't find a body for 2 weeks.

A good criminal case can hinge on something as small as a single hair. Any DNA evidence comes back inconclusive, one of the first tactics the defense uses is the fire department contaminated the scene, and they argue the jury should not consider any evidence because there were multiple firefighters on the scene contaminating or possibly planting evidence. They point out the firefighters are good people and good at their jobs, but they aren't investigators, and now we can't prove who the real killer is.

Golly, you said the buiding was totally destroyed, where is this single hair coming from? What is it made of because if it survived this inferno I want some PPE made of that hair. Why wouldn't that same attorney say that firefighters planted evidence every time they did an interior attack? Your premise is ludicrous and even you know it.

Proving a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt requires accounting for every boot print, shoe print, fingerprint, and hair on the crime scene, and being able to trace it back to a specific person that was on scene during the fire, then proving that person was not there before the fire. Defense attorneys want to be able to point the finger at someone else. Anything that is unaccounted, inconclusive, or comes back to someone else is how they exonerate their client. With one to three investigators, and pictures taken before each step is made, each step accounted for, and precautions taken not to contaminate any DNA evidence, it's not a terribly difficult task. Start throwing in a bunch of firefighters, and it gets very tricky. Especially volunteer firefighters that weren't specifically accounted for at a station beforehand or may not clock in/out at their workplace.

So by your standards no firefighter should ever enter a burning building because their mere presence in that building may contaminate evidence of arson. Ridiculous...

Add in the fact that most of them do not write individual reports like peace officers, the case may take several years to go to trial, and memories fade, and it makes it a very difficult task. Compounded by the fact the chief and several of the volunteers are likely not terribly well-spoken and get nervous on the witness stand, so they would make very difficult witnesses. If there needs to be a chain of custody for evidence, it needs to start and end with law enforcement.

Actually, both volunteer fire departments I am on require first in reports from all responders if the fire appears suspicious. You really don't have a very high opinion of volunteer firefighters do you? I know many with multiple certifications and some with college degrees. Good lord you have no idea what so ever how to conduct a fire investigation if you believe the only people capable of doing it are law enforcement. That may be the way it is in YOUR location but it most certainly isn't that way everywhere. Chain of evidence has absolutely NOTHING to do with law enforcement and EVERYTHING to do with documentation, no matter who has control of the evidence. Documentation to include pictures, who found it, where they found it, why they moved it if they did, and a document showing who had the evidence all the way down the line.

Again, I'm not justifying that a search didn't happen. But every fire has a cause, and when an occupant does not escape and survive, there is a reason. Until an investigation happens, none of that can be determined. Waiting two weeks to investigate is taking WAY too long. If it were a homicide, the odds of solving it are now very low. Cold investigations make cold cases.

You have done nothing but justfy why a search didn't occur. You can't even use the line "But every fire has a cause, and when an occupant does not escape and survive, there is a reason." Because by now there is no hope of ever proving anyting in court because the building has been unsecured for 2 weeks and who know how many people have wandered in and out of there. Perhaps if firefighters had done overhaul and looked for victims an investigation that would have had meaning could have been done. Now it is almost pointless.

The fire department massively dropped the ball and didn't do their job and nothing you say will make me believe otherwise.

Going to have to go with Fyred here. I understand the premise of a crime scene and not doing more than necessary to make sure the fire is out, but our job is to make sure that the fire is out. I don't know how you can do that without overhaul. Proper overhaul involves salvage and going through every place the fire has touched to make sure that all hot spots have been extinguished.

Not doing a good overhaul is why you hear about so many "rekindles". Nothing rekindled, it wasn't put out. They were in too big of a hurry to be done to avoid overtime or go back and watch Dancing with the Stars. During that overhaul, the bodies would be found, unless they were so terribly destroyed that there was little remaining other than teeth. But again, that was not the case in this story.

Sometimes, and it happened very recently with me, Prosecutors stop the FD from searching. And yes, it can (and has) occurred before all victims are accounted for.

Uh, how does a prosecutor have ANY jurisdiction over an active firescene??? Other than transferring an investigation from a local fire inspector to a state fire marshal, the fire service handles arson investigations here. They may work with law enforcement, but the fire aspect is the domain of the fire service. Prosecutors just use the evidence gained by the investigators.

Uh, how does a prosecutor have ANY jurisdiction over an active firescene??? Other than transferring an investigation from a local fire inspector to a state fire marshal, the fire service handles arson investigations here. They may work with law enforcement, but the fire aspect is the domain of the fire service. Prosecutors just use the evidence gained by the investigators.

There. Not here. Arson investigations in my area handled by County Fire Marshalls and County Prosecutors office. A known fatality will usually be taken over by Prosecutors office very soon. Very few FD's in area do investigations.

There. Not here. Arson investigations in my area handled by County Fire Marshalls and County Prosecutors office. A known fatality will usually be taken over by Prosecutors office very soon. Very few FD's in area do investigations.

The fire depts. still have to search for victims. I understand leaving an obvious deceased person where they are, but there are still basic fire service functions that need to be performed.

And a check of has all evidence been considered, have all interviews been done. , etc

A "suit" is the last person needed on a scene. "Legalities" of an investigation are pretty simple and straightforward. There are established methods of investigation, and standard methods and procedures to gathering, handling, storing, and processing evidence. Most of which a procecutor are not trained in. Any halfway decent arson investigator doesn't need a procecutor to investigate a scene. Questioning witnesses and suspects gets into more stringent confines though, but they should already know how to do that as well.
I have never in 30 years in the fire service, seen, or even heard of a prosecutor coming to a fire scene during an investigation.

Not doing a good overhaul is why you hear about so many "rekindles". Nothing rekindled, it wasn't put out. They were in too big of a hurry to be done to avoid overtime or go back and watch Dancing with the Stars. During that overhaul, the bodies would be found, unless they were so terribly destroyed that there was little remaining other than teeth. But again, that was not the case in this story.

I have begun calling so called "rekindles" warranty work. We didn't do the job right the first time so we are returning to fix what we didn't the first time.

We can sing and dance all day and night about who does the investigation. The fact is quite simple...NO ONE found a deceased victim in this housefor 2 WEEKS. The fire department in the final stages of extinguishing the fire and doing overhaul should have found the body.

We can sing and dance all day and night about who does the investigation. The fact is quite simple...NO ONE found a deceased victim in this housefor 2 WEEKS. The fire department in the final stages of extinguishing the fire and doing overhaul should have found the body.

agreed -- in the story they said the neighbors gave a heads up about a possible squatter/"partyier"
That and the fact that a thorough overhaul SHOULD have turned up a body. My biggest issue is the weak jollyvolly defense. Take your lumps, admit you could have done things better, and then take concrete steps to assure that it wont happen again. We all tend to circle the wagons when we screw up, but sometimes some of those outside the wagons, that we perceive to be hostile, can be a true asset.

A "suit" is the last person needed on a scene. "Legalities" of an investigation are pretty simple and straightforward. There are established methods of investigation, and standard methods and procedures to gathering, handling, storing, and processing evidence. Most of which a procecutor are not trained in. Any halfway decent arson investigator doesn't need a procecutor to investigate a scene. Questioning witnesses and suspects gets into more stringent confines though, but they should already know how to do that as well.
I have never in 30 years in the fire service, seen, or even heard of a prosecutor coming to a fire scene during an investigation.

Again, differences in areas. Arson investigators around here are Police Detectives and some County fire marshalls. Local FD's.....not.

Suffolk D.A. was on-scene in Boston recently, with two FF fatalities, before the fire was cold.

Irrelevant to the OP's original story. Boston was an LODD with 2 known fatalities. The OP's story the deceased wasn't found by anyone for 2 weeks because no search for victims was done and no investigation was done for 2 weeks. Hardly similar circumstances on any level at all.

Not to lay blame, or to defend anyone because someone screwed up, but anyone who says they don't know of an example of a fire where we didn't physically overhaul is either a liar, or very new. It is not uncommon to prohibit members to go in, and physically overhaul when the structural integrity of the building is in question. We've probably all been to that fire where for what ever reason we've gone defensive, and our "overhaul" was nothing more than just having a couple extra engine companies hang around dumping water into the place.

As it relates to this thread; I wasn't there, didn't see how "involved" the building was, and know nothing of the decisions and tactics the chief employeed, so I will refrain from placing blame. Hopefully the parties involved learn something, and make some changes to how they operate.

Not to lay blame, or to defend anyone because someone screwed up, but anyone who says they don't know of an example of a fire where we didn't physically overhaul is either a liar, or very new. It is not uncommon to prohibit members to go in, and physically overhaul when the structural integrity of the building is in question. We've probably all been to that fire where for what ever reason we've gone defensive, and our "overhaul" was nothing more than just having a couple extra engine companies hang around dumping water into the place.

As it relates to this thread; I wasn't there, didn't see how "involved" the building was, and know nothing of the decisions and tactics the chief employeed, so I will refrain from placing blame. Hopefully the parties involved learn something, and make some changes to how they operate.

Sure -but the response should have been , "The building was structurally unsound and entering the building would have endangered the firefighters. We performed a secondary search from the exterior to the best of our abilities. " - having said that -looking at the pictures , I wasn't able to see any foundation vents or basement windows, im guessing a slab.